On the marketing, I think parts of the online romance community are so constantly looking for offense that they can overreact to any deviation from the usual schlock book covers. The “Author thinks she’s lit fic but she’s only chick lit” and “Book pretends to be Serious but is really average romance” arguments read to me as reverse-chip-on-shoulder and offensive in themselves. (There’s also the “Book pretends to be romance but is really some hybrid form” argument, but it doesn’t sound like that one arises here.)

I do know of historical fiction readers who enjoyed the series, and also of romance readers. Part of the issue re marketing for this one is in the fact that the books don’t fit any particular genre completely. There’s a bit of chick-lit (I usually just want those part to get moving), some historical data, some historical romance. Oh, and I totally think it is meant to be a nod to The Scarlet Pimpernel. No doubt in my mind.

Funnily enough, this is the second post I have seen about this book in the last year. I guess that means that the marketers did something right if we are still talking about the book five years later, and six books in the series.

I read historical fiction as well as romance and I’ve seen these discussed by the hist fic crowd. Some folks like them and some don’t. There are some hardcore historical fiction readers who won’t tolerate even the hint of a romantic plot, but there also seem to be plenty of readers who love historical fiction and also like some romantic plots as long as the book isn’t total wallpaper and it’s packaged to look at least a little more highbrow. Many of these people probably would never pick up anything with a clinch cover, but I can see where something like Willig’s series would hold appeal for them.

@Evangeline: I agree with your assessment 100%. And thanks for letting me know about romance community reaction in 2005. I would have loved to be here then!

@Fyrefly: Yes, I found it very ironic that the author’s bona fides in history were at the forefront of marketing, when the situations presented in the book were so modern.

@Phyl: Once I saw it as comedic, I stopped getting irritated at things like the hero’s total inability to actually spy. I kept thinking “Princess Bride” and it helped. I did enjoy it overall — after all, there are lots of book I don’t even get through.

@Kate: I think Pam Rosenthal is another historical romance author who gets the Willig/Noble treatment. I haven’t read Noble (have one on my TBR), but to me, Willig is 100% historical romance, while Rosenthal is truly doing something more daring and “out of the box”. (I just don’t count the snippets of modern day in SH. There were so few of them, and they didn’t mesh with the historical plot. I mentally excise them when I categorize this book. Cheating, I realize) It seems to me that the marketing should reflect the contents of the book. But I am naive.

@Sarah Frantz: I’ve seen an adaptation of SP, but never read it. It sounds like I have to remedy that right away!

@Victoria Janssen: I think you might like it a lot. I was careful to put my dislike of the language in the “subjective” category, because I do think it is a matter of taste.

@SonomaLass: You’ve got the timelines right. And in terms of page number, I am guessing less than 5% is devoted to the contemporary romance.

@Kate Pearce: the series sells very well, if the # of books and the latest one’s being on the extended NYT list is any indication. But whether “word got out” after SH that it is a romance, and the bulk of readers are romance readers, or whether the series’ marketing really did attract a group of people who wouldn’t be caught dead reading historical romance, I can’t guess.

@Liz: thanks for the clarification!

@jmc: I know, such an underachiever, that Willig. Poor thing. Maybe one day she’ll actually excel at something.

I was in the right frame of mind for these when I picked PC up. I needed light reading, with funny characters and ridiculous situations, and that’s what I got. The marketing angle is interesting, that’s for sure; I suppose if I had picked this up with expectations of SERIOUS HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP, I would have been disappointed. But then I find that some popular historical fiction rubs me the wrong way; I’d rather have the light version than be expected to take seriously the stuff in some HF.

And I’m laughing along with Sarah at the idea of Scarlet Pimpernel as historical fiction!

The reason I haven’t read it yet is the frame story. I am not fond of frame stories. But I to plan to read it eventually, since I love reading stories that play with genre.

how many lawyers write romance, after all?

Actually, I think it was (a) her Ivy League education, and (b) the fact that she had done graduate work in early modern British history, that was seen as more relevant than her being in law school.

I confess there was one bit in the MSNBC piece that made me roll my eyes so vigorously they almost rolled right out of my head:

One of her history professors, Steven Ozment, said he encouraged Willig to parlay her research into a novel.

“Most historians here have quite a range,” he said. “Academics can write a substantive, scholarly piece or they can write historical fiction. They can soup it up, tart it up.”

Oh really? I’ll have to tell my husband to get going on that Boer War historical novel right away. Should be a piece of cake!